Pragmatic evaluation of events and benefits of lipid lowering in older adults (PREVENTABLE): Trial design and rationale.

Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high-intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community-dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site-reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co-secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

Mechanisms to expedite pediatric clinical trial site activation: The DOSE trial experience.

BACKGROUND: Timely trial start-up is a key determinant of trial success; however, delays during start-up are common and costly. Moreover, data on start-up metrics in pediatric clinical trials are sparse. To expedite trial start-up, the Trial Innovation Network piloted three novel mechanisms in the trial titled Dexmedetomidine Opioid Sparing Effect in Mechanically Ventilated Children (DOSE), a multi-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in the pediatric intensive care setting. METHODS: The three novel start-up mechanisms included: 1) competitive activation; 2) use of trial start-up experts, called site navigators; and 3) supplemental funds earned for achieving pre-determined milestones. After sites were activated, they received a web-based survey to report perceptions of the DOSE start-up process. In addition to perceptions, metrics analyzed included milestones met, time to start-up, and subsequent enrollment of subjects. RESULTS: Twenty sites were selected for participation, with 19 sites being fully activated. Across activated sites, the median (quartile 1, quartile 3) time from receipt of regulatory documents to site activation was 82 days (68, 113). Sites reported that of the three novel mechanisms, the most motivating factor for expeditious activation was additional funding available for achieving start-up milestones, followed by site navigator assistance and then competitive site activation. CONCLUSION: Study start-up is a critical time for the success of clinical trials, and innovative methods to minimize delays during start-up are needed. Milestone-based funds and site navigators were preferred mechanisms by sites participating in the DOSE study and may have contributed to the expeditious start-up timeline achieved. CLINICALTRIALS: gov #: NCT03938857.

Effect of the REG1 anticoagulation system versus bivalirudin on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (REGULATE-PCI): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: REG1 is a novel anticoagulation system consisting of pegnivacogin, an RNA aptamer inhibitor of coagulation factor IXa, and anivamersen, a complementary sequence reversal oligonucleotide. We tested the hypothesis that near complete inhibition of factor IXa with pegnivacogin during percutaneous coronary intervention, followed by partial reversal with anivamersen, would reduce ischaemic events compared with bivalirudin, without increasing bleeding. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial to compare REG1 with bivalirudin at 225 hospitals in North America and Europe. We planned to randomly allocate 13,200 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a 1:1 ratio to either REG1 (pegnivacogin 1 mg/kg bolus [>99% factor IXa inhibition] followed by 80% reversal with anivamersen after percutaneous coronary intervention) or bivalirudin. Exclusion criteria included ST segment elevation myocardial infarction within 48 h. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned target lesion revascularisation by day 3 after randomisation. The principal safety endpoint was major bleeding. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01848106. The trial was terminated early after enrolment of 3232 patients due to severe allergic reactions. FINDINGS: 1616 patients were allocated REG1 and 1616 were assigned bivalirudin, of whom 1605 and 1601 patients, respectively, received the assigned treatment. Severe allergic reactions were reported in ten (1%) of 1605 patients receiving REG1 versus one (<1%) of 1601 patients treated with bivalirudin. The composite primary endpoint did not differ between groups, with 108 (7%) of 1616 patients assigned REG1 and 103 (6%) of 1616 allocated bivalirudin reporting a primary endpoint event (odds ratio [OR] 1·05, 95% CI 0·80-1·39; p=0·72). Major bleeding was similar between treatment groups (seven [<1%] of 1605 receiving REG1 vs two [<1%] of 1601 treated with bivalirudin; OR 3·49, 95% CI 0·73-16·82; p=0·10), but major or minor bleeding was increased with REG1 (104 [6%] vs 65 [4%]; 1·64, 1·19-2·25; p=0·002). INTERPRETATION: The reversible factor IXa inhibitor REG1, as currently formulated, is associated with severe allergic reactions. Although statistical power was limited because of early termination, there was no evidence that REG1 reduced ischaemic events or bleeding compared with bivalirudin. FUNDING: Regado Biosciences Inc.

Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, annual funding for biomedical research has more than doubled while new molecular entity approvals have declined by one third. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of practices commonly employed in the conduct of large-scale clinical trials, and to identify areas where costs could be reduced without compromising scientific validity. METHODS: In the qualitative phase of the study, an expert panel recommended potential modifications of mega-trial designs and operations in order to maximize their value (cost versus scientific benefit tradeoff). In the quantitative phase, a mega-trial economic model was used to assess the financial implications of these recommendations. Our initial chronic disease trial design included 20,000 patients randomized at 1000 sites. Each site was assigned 24 monitoring visits and a $10,000 per patient site payment. The case report form (CRF) was 60 pages long, and trial duration was assumed to be 48 months. RESULTS: The total costs of the initial trial design were $421 million ($US 2007). Following the expert panel's recommendations, we varied study duration, CRF length, number of sites, electronic data capture (EDC), and site management components to determine their individual and combined effects upon total trial costs. The use of EDC and modified site management practices were associated with significant reductions in total trial costs. When reductions in all five trial components were combined in a streamlined pharmaceutical industry design, a 59% reduction in total trial costs resulted. When we assumed an even more streamlined trial design than has typically been considered for regulatory submissions in the past, there was a 90% reduction in total trial costs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that it is possible to reduce substantially the cost of large-scale clinical trials without compromising the scientific validity of their results. If implemented, our recommendations could free billions of dollars annually for additional clinical studies. Research in the setting of clinical trials should be conducted to refine these findings.

Resource use, costs, and quality of life among patients in the multinational Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT).

BACKGROUND: In a multinational clinical trial, valsartan was statistically not inferior to captopril in reducing mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with signs of heart failure and/or left ventricular dysfunction. We conducted a prospective economic evaluation to compare within-trial resource use, costs, and quality of life in patients receiving valsartan, captopril, or both after MI. METHODS: We assigned country-specific unit costs to resource use data for 14703 patients and measured health-related quality of life in a subset of 4524 patients. We used the nonparametric bootstrap method to compare rates of resource use and costs, and a piecewise linear mixed-effects regression analysis to compare longitudinal measures of quality of life. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in rates of resource use between the valsartan and captopril groups. During an average follow-up of 2 years, total costs for patients receiving valsartan were significantly higher than for patients receiving captopril (USD 14103 vs USD 13038; 95% CI USD 369-USD 1875). The cost differential was caused primarily by the cost of the study medications (USD 1056 for valsartan vs USD 165 for captopril; 95% CI USD 867 to USD 912). Quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients at high risk after MI, the availability of generic captopril confers a cost advantage over valsartan because of lower medication costs. The difference will be smaller or nonexistent in settings where brand-name ACE inhibitors are prescribed.

Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients. METHODS: Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival.

VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial: baseline characteristics in context.

BACKGROUND: The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial compared outcomes with: (1) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (ACEI) with the reference agent captopril; (2) angiotensin-receptor blockade (ARB) with valsartan; or (3) both in patients with heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) after myocardial infarction (MI). AIMS: a goal of this active-control trial was to simulate conditions that would lead current practitioners to use ACEIs. Thus, we compared characteristics of VALIANT patients with those of patients in placebo-controlled trials that established ACEIs as standard treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We collected demographic, clinical, medication and imaging information from 14703 patients in 24 countries. This high-risk population was a median 65.8 years old, and 31.1% were female. Most (51.8%) showed imaging evidence of LVSD at enrollment. Most (72%) had Killip class>/=II HF. Patients received evidence-based therapies at rates similar to those of contemporary MI trials and at an improved rate compared with prior placebo-controlled ACEI trials. CONCLUSION: VALIANT represents the largest globally representative cohort enrolled with HF and/or LVSD after MI. Patients were similar to those in placebo-controlled ACEI trials while reflecting improvements in evidence-based care. With enrollment complete, VALIANT is poised to define the optimal strategy for renin-angiotensin system blockade after MI to improve cardiovascular outcomes.